Archive for category Law and Order
I enjoyed reading Carson’s “Arrest-Proof Yourself” for a reason peculiar to myself, just as I enjoyed Holland’s “Trust Me, I’m Lying” for another underlying theme.
The underlying theme I saw in “Trust Me” was from my having lived through the years Holland clearly thought of as The Good Old Days. His information from how blog info is not even meant to be truthful was interesting. His grief about the news monopoly blogs are replacing is HILARIOUS.
One of Holland’s gods, Walter Cronkite, would make regular speeches about what morons like Holland thought were objective. He made it very clear that his duty was to BE biased, to select the news he reported. Like an old-timer, Holland moans about the true and objective and checked-out news of his youth.
Holland’s “icon” is Jon “Stewart” on Comedy Central, whose show is a “Revival Meeting for Political Correctness.” Jerry Falwell should sue “Stewart” for stealing his whole approach and his whole vocabulary.
Carson didn’t make a fool of himself, because one of his main themes was laid down almost forty years ago by a truly great writer.
Carson explained the hunger for arrests today on the basis of law as an industry.
The crime rate peaked back in the 60s, when Batman kept repeating the “rehabilitation” crap because by then it was already funny. Like Mommy Professor, he would repeat that he caught Penguin and Cat Woman, not for punishment, but for rehabilitation.
Today, fifty years later, what every college student believes in has long since been a JOKE out in the real world.
A mere forty years ago I made a shockingly novel point: I said that the Military Industrial Complex indeed did have a political agenda based on government money.
But I then detailed how ALL government expenditure, including the Education-Welfare Complex, also produced its own political agenda which Mommy Professor sells daily.
Simply put, when teachers want a pay raise, it is not entirely because that would be good for the kids. This doesn’t sound surprising today, but before my 1976 book came out, standard commentary NEVER mentioned that anything “social” or “education” could have ANY money-based constituency.
So a lot of Carson’s book was uniquely familiar territory for me. He was a cop and FBI and is now a big money defense attorney.
Carson points out that the ONLY criterion a street cop has for promotion and pay, and even retention, is the number of ARRESTS he makes.
As I did for the education-welfare establishment, Carson details the huge amount of money generated by the system for every person who goes to jail.
Any other outlook is as zombied out as Batman talking about rehabilitating.
And he makes it clear that jail is not prison, and that the ONLY criterion for a good cop is how many people he sends to jail and how many to prison.
Carson also underlines a point I made to you when BUGSERS discussed what to do if the FBI or other officers showed up. A lot of people came up with smartass lines to use on the investigators, and I begged you NOT to smartass them.
Now you have it from an ex-cop and an ex-interrogator: if you face the real thing, try to save your ass, not make bragging points.
To say that Carson agrees is pure understatement.
Carson drops the crap that “part of the reason” the War on Drugs continues, the disaster of Prohibition cubed, is that those hundreds of billions of dollars spent on it has a constituency.
Carson does not use the term bullshit, but early he makes it clear that this insane program, far more disastrous in a year than the whole War in Vietnam, is ENTIRELY because people from judges to cops depend on it for their livelihood.
It is a scary book, but worthwhile. But you can also see that persecuting a bunch of amateur political fanatics, no matter how effective they are, is not likely to be a real-life major police priority.
The World War 2 Generation came back from their how-to-be a good doggy training with the conviction that they were AMERICANS ONLY. There was no white, there was no black, there were no Southerners and no Northerners. As to self-interest, there was only Sacrifice.
That is precisely the kind of Wordist attitude that the Constitution could not operate in. The Constitution uses a system of checks and balances where personal preferences are allowed because the different branches of government will keep each other in check. The final appeal was to the people.
But when the WWII Generation took power, there was no “people.” They were all Americans. The people did not have any existence except as Good AMERICANS. So they had to appeal to a Federal Branch to tell them what Good Americans were.
Whereas the Tenth Amendment made it specific that the final appeal would be to the people or the states, Good Americans do not see any separate entities of this kind.
So the World War II Generation’s Final Appeal is to the Federal Courts.
In the America of respectable conservatives, the term “undocumented worker” is perfectly accurate. In a paper country, why should one person be allowed to work on one side of the border and another not? To respectable conservatives, there is nothing racial or inherited or even cultural about Americans. To conservatives, being an America is entirely a matter of paperwork.
Why should one Julio get five times the wages of another Julio because he has papers?
When the Immigration and Naturalization Acts were passed in 1921 and 1923, it was decided that America was made up of a certain people, and immigration would keep that identity. Calling something illegal immigration made sense, since those laws followed a racial and cultural policy.
But for a melting pot, where the choice of citizens is openly random, no one can really take the word “illegal” seriously. In terms of American policy today, nothing about you matters except the papers.
The term “undocumented worker” should be “undocumented citizen.” A bumper sticker ought to say, “I’m not a citizen, I’m just documented.”
Our borders are collapsing because we have declared they no longer make any sense.
A melting pot cannot be selective.
I hope you don’t think I’m on a sermon jag this Sunday. Pain made a comment that made think in this direction. I hope no one takes my theology seriously. I am illustrating the development of Wordism and copyright law, which I have some qualifications to do.
I have not been elected Pope, though I came within a hundred votes every time.
So on to copyright law.
Almost anyone who does a lot of writing, as I hope you will, has concerns about copyright law. One of the jokes I tell goes this way:
“The Bible is the best selling book, by far, in all of history. In fact it is by far the best-selling book on earth every single year.”
“If the Jews are such great businessmen, why the hell didn’t they COPYRIGHT it?”
In other words, the idea of copyrighting the Bible was a joke to me.
Which shows how little I know about lawyers.
I found out recently why there are so many honest differences about the wording in the Bible Back when I was a by and snakes still had feet, “the Bible” where I came from meant the St. James Version. There was also a CATHOLIC Bible. But these were both far too old to have any copyright.
Then came The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which my conservative kin referred to as “The Communist Bible.” The Revised Standard Version came with a copyright. Strictly speaking, when you quoted it you were in violation of the law.
The law allows you what is called the “fair use” doctrine, which allows you to quote text without permission up to a certain number of words. “Fair use” makes provision for reviewers and so forth, but like all legal concepts, it is not nailed down specifically. You can’t just take a chapter out of a famous author’s book and use it to sell your anthology, for instance.
In the case of most copyrighted books you get permission or you get sued. But all over the web you will find comparisons of huge slabs of the Bible from different versions, most of which are still copyrighted. The fact is that the people holding the copyright COULD sue but they DON’T. After all, the ostensible purpose of retranslating The Book is to spread it.
All this is fairly recent news to me. It may be to some of you.
This e-mail gave me lots of info in one place, with pictures, so this one time I’ll pass it on:
More clear evidence of the blessings of diversity!
This link is the FBI’s wanted list, for violent crimes – murders:
And this is the FBI’s wanted list for violent crimes, additional (meaning other than murder, I guess):
Please note that the mot waned include one who comitted “Murder with a Deadly Weapon” and one who is charged with”Murder and Failure to Appear.” I wonder if anyone but me finds anything to mull over about these?
Every time I take off my belt at airport security, I keep thinking that the terrorists should send the security personnel a letter of thanks. If they didn’t do that, the terrorists would like to.
What all that airport security guarantees is that if a terrorist wants to take over a plane, everyone on board is absolutely helpless against him.
The hundreds of thousands of people who have held concealed weapons permits for over a decade now have a MUCH better record with their guns than ANY police agency does. If you ever saw one permit holder do something stupid with his gun it would be on the front page coast-to-coast.
How many times have you seen or seen it reported the POLICE used their guns recklessly?
Why is this true?
Police work often destroys the nerves. A permit holder is not subject to the constant pressure a policeman is.
Ask any police psychiatrist whether every policeman he knows is fit to be armed twenty-four hours of every day.
They are all REQUIRED to be so armed. Look at THAT before you panic over “Letting citizens carry guns.”
If terrorists are enough of a threat to make strip-searching grandmothers and all the rest necessary, the simple fact is that permit holders are demonstrably FAR less dangerous than that.
And even the possibility of ONE permit holder with a gun would destroy all the plans a terrorist can make.
When I took my first course in international law, I assumed there was no such thing. I thought it meant taking the League of Nations or the UN seriously.
I was, as everyone always does, taking it from the wrong end.
In the real world courts must decide on cases which involve more than one country. They have no choice. There is nothing theoretical about it. The courts in each country must pick its own precedents. American judges use a lot of British precendents and vice-versa, since both have a basis in the Common Law.
It had not occurred to me before I took the course that such cases HAVE to be decided, and the result is called international law, thought it is not international.
We have a similar problem with regard to interstate relations in the United States. The Constitution requires each state to give “full faith and credit” to the laws of other states. In other words, if one state allows homosexual marriage every other state must recognize it.
But they don’t. Since the beginning states have refused to extradict people convicted of criminal acts to the states where they were convicted.
There is the provision for full faith and credit, but there is no ENFORCEMENT mechanism. “Full faith and credit,” like international law, is a guideline, not a law.
If the Supreme Court told the president he had to use force to make one state extradict to another he would do it. Today the courts rule absolutely. But historically that was not the case.
When America extradicts a murderer from abroad, it has to guarantee the country extradicting that the nice guy will not face the death penalty here. Massachussetts can and probably will do exactly the same for murderere who escape there.
In Massachussetts the state supreme court decided that it didn’t like the state law that required that people cannot be married unless they are of different sexes. No other state accepts that.
In the United States you can be legally married to two different spouses. About 1945 North Carolina decided it would not accept Nevada’s easy divorce law. In fact until 1948 there was NO divorce law in SOUTH Carolina.
The court had no way to force North Carolina to accept Nevada divorces. So a man who was divorced and remarried in Nevada remained married to his original wife when he was in North Carolina but he was also legally married to his new wife in Nevada and states that accepted Nevada law.
As a matter of fact tens of thousands of people were and are legally married to two different partners in the United States. If any of them contracted a gay marriage in Massachussetts, they would legally married to three different people.
Under international law, America in general did not accept the easy Mexican divorces, even Nevada. So you could have your fourth spouse down there.
In case you think this is pure theory, remember that a person married to an American citizen has the right to permanent residence in the United States.
Here is a person married to an American citizen in half the states but not in the other half. If both wives are foreigners, which one gets the permanent visa?
Which gives you an idea of what international law looks like.
The left “exercising its right to free speech.”
The right “hides behind the first amendment.”
This is hte official language used in the media. So Holocaust deniers who do their denying on the internet are, according to official media language, “Hiding behind the first amendment in the United States.”
In plain English, that means that they avoiding the years in prison that they deserve.
But the first amendment isnot a very safe hiding place.
Many years ago the Supreme Court decided that treaties are not subject to constitutional guarantees. The treaty that established the United Nations is exempt from the Constitution.
In case you think this is a detail of history, Senator Bricker of Ohio fought for years for his constitutional amendment which would overrule the Supreme Court and make treaties subject to the United States Constitution.
They are NOT.
So the first amendment does NOT protect you from extradition to Europe for internet Holocaust denial. The UNited Nations, which is exempt from the first amendment, has demanded it.
Under present so-called constitutional law, which means whatever the Supreme Court feels like, the United States is obligated to extradict any person to France if he violates French Holocaust Denial law.
Or Israeli Holocaust denial law.
If that were NOT the case, the Bricker Amendment would have passed. Bricker fought for it a LONG time. It’s the real thing.
It happens to be true that if the United Nations declared worldwide gun control, the United States is obligated to obey.
It happens to be the case that if the United Nations says that Americans accused of war crimes by Sweden must be extradicted, what we call constitutional law requires us to do it.
And when the UN gets wround to THAT, the conservatives will start screaming, just as they did with Roe versus Wade, “How could THIS have happened?”
These things ALWAYS start with “a blow against racism” like the 1968 Supreme Court decision voiding all state antimiscegenation laws. The conservatives ALWAYS fail to notice it.
Then it ALWAYS comes home to roost.